At 08:36 PM 10/13/2002, Joshua Slive wrote:
>André Malo wrote:
>>I've tried to find a solution. It's certainly not complete, but a first
>>suggestion. I simply fetched the old module docs from the Attic, named
>>them "obs_*" and modified the xslt a little bit. As proposed by
>>Joshua they got the status "Obsolete" and also a large warning on top of
>>the page. The modules are listed on module index
>><http://cvs.apache.org/~nd/manual/mod/>
>
>+1. That is about what I had in mind. The <note> at the top could be improved
a little. Something along the lines, "This module was replaced in version 2.0.44 and greater
by <module>mod_...</module> (and mod_...).
>For more information, see ..."
>
>>I think we need a document that explains exactly the changes and the new
>>provider mechanism, so we may set links from both (pre and post) module
>>docs.
>
>Absolutely essential before the next release. If it is simple it can go in upgrading.html.
If it is complicated, it should get a separate doc and be linked from there.
>
>One more note: I'd like to see the rename of mod_access reversed. That just seems like
a gratuitous change that hurts users and doesn't really help developers.
On that same thought... mod_auth_basic is equally obtuse. Renaming
it back to mod_auth doesn't seem like a stretch (if you consider that the
simplest auth is basic.) Of course, we don't lose the ability to leave
mod_auth unloaded and simply load mod_auth_digest.
Obviously, loading mod_authn_file, mod_authn_default, mod_authz_file,
mod_authz_default, mod_authz_groupfile, mod_authz_host, and
mod_authz_user are going to be required to retain behavior that folks
are expecting. But at least the renames could go.
BTW André, nice start. I'd call out "mod_auth (prior to 2.0.44)"
as it's index entry, if we keep the mod_auth_basic concept. Likewise
for mod_access.
Bill
Bill
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org